Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (166259)	7/31/2001 1:03:01 AM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 769667

Bush's first six months above average By MARIANNE MEANS PRESIDENT Bush ends his first six months as the mirror image of former President Bill Clinton, whose professional performance was highly rated but not his personal character. Voters like Bush's moral standards, but they don't like many of his public policies. Because Bush was unable to hold the Senate or persuade much of the country to follow his rightward lead, his initial headlong political blitz has dissolved into a mushy legislative mess. He lost his early control of the agenda and is now engaged in the hand-to-hand combat that has defined other recent presidencies. This is not necessarily bad. Compromise between competing interests can be good. Some of Bush's sweeping legislative proposals were ill-considered and ill-informed. One of the most politically inexperienced presidents ever elected, Bush had a great deal to learn. But there is some evidence that his thinking is less simplistic and more inclusive than when he entered the White House determined to show the world who was boss. There is no training camp for presidents. They must learn on the job. After six months, Bush still has difficulty communicating and persuading voters that he means to put their concerns ahead of the special interests of big business. Yet he shows signs of being more flexible than in the beginning. And while he hasn't picked up new political support, he has held onto the roughly 50 percent voter approval that he originally had. Overall, his performance so far merits a B. He deserves some benefit of the doubt. Impressing the country with his personal rectitude is a worthwhile achievement in the wake of the Clinton scandals. The policy-making still needs work, but he's a pragmatic fellow and his learning curve may be fast. His problems are tactical as well as philosophical, but not unsolvable. In any case, the country will hold together out of habit. Bush's initial approach to his job was a mistake, given the sharp ideological divisions in the country. He tried to govern with a right-wing bulldozer instead of a centrist construction crane. The collapse of this idiocy demonstrated the wisdom of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's admonition: "Write on your doors the saying wise and old, `Be Bold! Be Bold! And everywhere -- Be Bold -- Be Not Too Bold.' " The massive tax cut was his first move and perhaps last total victory. It gave "bold" a bad name. It was so controversial that it gave him no new political momentum and it is being blamed at least in part for the shaky economy. The other pillars of his administration program are equally sweeping and their consequences equally untested, unnecessarily complicating his ability to achieve his goals. His faith-based initiative, for instance, was never thoroughly debated in Congress before his Republican allies pushed it through the House. If the legitimate concerns about its constitutionality and potential for encouraging discrimination had been properly aired, the proposal might have been modified to make it more acceptable. As it is, the initiative is badly flawed. The Democratic-controlled Senate is so uninterested that its leaders do not even plan to schedule hearings. "He can have the issue, but he won't get a bill," a Democratic senator says. Recently administration officials indicated the president might offer legal residency to more than 3 million Mexicans who have entered this country illegally. Republicans promptly complained it would reward people who broke the law, and Democrats demanded that additional illegal aliens from other countries be included. The White House backed away, shifting the emphasis from a blanket amnesty to creating a guest-worker program. Once again the president had failed to consult rival power centers in advance. The optimist, however, can hope the second six months will be better than the first. He has been trying to downsize his proposals and identify with popular causes. He has accepted a reduced scale for his education initiative, proposed limited drug discounts for seniors, softened his resistance to energy conservation measures and promoted military modernization. He is working to reinforce his personal appeal, posing in informal settings with children and doing "regular guy" things. In the end, much will turn upon whether he has the common sense to authorize federal support for popular embryonic stem cell research. It is one of the most emotional and important issues of our time. If he tries to block the march of medical science, he will be forever branded as cruel and ignorant. And his next report card will show that he flunked. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Means is a Washington, D.C.-based columnist for the Hearst Newspapers. (means@hearstdc.com)

To: puborectalis who wrote (166259)	7/31/2001 1:30:54 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769667

After the voter fiasco in various areas of the US, I'm not as critical of Bush sending the notices out. I don't entirely agree with it but then I didn't agree with Gov. Davis when he did essentially the same thing with auto registration fee refunds in California. In that case you paid the fee first and then a refund was mailed with Davis's note attached. Could have just adjusted the fees.

To: puborectalis who wrote (166259)	7/31/2001 10:23:44 PM
From: SOROS	Respond to of 769667

URGENT -- IS BUSH A FRAUD? (We know the last guy was) Can someone offer proof of this? Is the current tax "refund", which George Bush has been touting for several months really NOT a refund at all? Is it indeed really an ADVANCE on 2001 taxes to be filed in 2002? Is the entire tax "refund" a SCAM? If you know me, you know I loathe liberal politicians and policies, but if Bush has claimed this tax program is a refund of taxes already paid, and it turns out to be an ADVANCE on 2001 taxes, then this is outright fraud, and my opinion of him will drop to the lowest levels. I know all of Washington exists to basically live WAY above the means of the people they "govern", but I had hopes Bush was at least sincere in some things. Can a tax attorney clarify this issue please? Perhaps it is just semantics, and the check is an actual refund. If so, why do they call it an ADVANCE and not a REFUND? This from www.irs.gov -- Questions about your advance payment check? Check out the Latest IRS News Release on the Advance Payment Mailout! I remain, SOROS ps I read on: The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 approved by Congress and signed by President Bush directs the Treasury to send checks to most income taxpayers this year, giving them an advance payment of a 2001 tax credit. This is a reduction of tax and is not taxable income on the federal tax return. The Internal Revenue Service will automatically process these advance payments after taxpayers have filed their returns for Tax Year 2000. Taxpayers will not have to complete applications, file any extra forms, or call the IRS to request their payments. I assume this means everyone GETS a NEW credit in 2001 to make up for this advance, so it is EXTRA money and NOT money that will reduce what you WOULD have gotten back in 2001. Can a tax attorney clarify this issue? Is the $300 that Joe Blow gets, all NEW money that does NOT reduce what he would have originally received next year when he files 2001 taxes? I read on: What is the purpose of these 2001 Advance Payments? The law is intended to give taxpayers the benefit of a new 10% tax bracket had it been in place for 2001. SO, even though it is new money, it is new money which everyone would have received in 2001 anyway because of the new tax laws. It should never have been referred to as a "REFUND." This is more Washington word games. I'll bet most people think they are getting back money that they already paid in 2000 tax year -- NOT TRUE. Still not sure if it is even new money for those not in 10% tax bracket????